Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Geo,

 

OK, reviewed and accepted.

 

Now back to your original reference to the "Flaw".  Fraser's algorithm pre-dates the HEM survey of the Moore area, would Fugro Airborne not of incorporated it (algorithm) into their processing?  I don't know.

 

Also, from my very limited understanding, it may not matter much if Fugro Airborne did or did not apply the corrective algorithm during data processing and interpretation, because it does not change the various structures (2D) locations.  Instead the flaw would cause the structure's inverted resistivity reading to be reported erroneously high and thus depicted in software's graphical representation as "much bigger than it actually is" .  Regardless though the various structure (centerlines) are still there, they just have a bigger "halo" surrounding them when present in a highly magnetic area, without the use of the Fraser algorithm. 

 

On the data leveling side of the possible "Flaw", I am of the (untrained) opinion that due to the use of three frequencies to establish both depth and resolutions the structure location depicted is correct. 

 

This discussion might be quite easily resolved if you would expand upon your ground observations from your Moore Creek claims.  As you examined and followed the intrusive depicted in the photos you posted....did it correctly correspond to the HEM Survey?

 

Now remember I am no Geowizard, so don't destroy me too bad on the above interpretation.  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geo thanks for the responses.

 

1.  As for the Fault Map, Ok got ya, thanks.

 

2.  As for the KMZs, these are the ones I have and I have dropped them into "My Places" in Goggle Earth.  Does your CD contain more KMZs than listed below;

 

Idi_MagDiu.kmz      Partially processed total magnetic field (nT)
Idi_MagRMI.kmz      Residual magnetic intensity (RMI) (nT) – final with IGRF removed
Idi_MagIGRF.kmz      Total magnetic field (nT) - final, with IGRF removed
Idi_1VD.kmz      First vertical derivative 'dz' ( nT/m) of the RMI
Idi_ASig.kmz      Analytic signal (nT/m) calculated from the RMI
Idi_TiltDer.kmz      Tilt derivative (degrees) of the RMI
Idi_Res56k.kmz      Apparent coplanar resistivity (ohm*m) for 56,000 (56k) Hz.
Idi_Res7200.kmz      Apparent coplanar resistivity (ohm*m) for 7200 Hz.
Idi_Res900.kmz      Apparent coplanar resistivity (ohm*m) for 9000 Hz.
Idi_DTM.kmz      Digital terrain or elevation model (m)
Idi_AltLasBird.kmz   EM bird height (m) above surface, measured by laser
       altimeter in EM bird

 

3.  Which one has the best Raw Data in near surface resolution (not depth)?

 

4.  The intrusive you located and photographed on your claim and posted above....can you resolve it with the Raw Data KMZ

 

 

Not looking for you to disclose location, just looking for ground verification that some of this data can get you within 13-15 feet on near surface conductive structure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rod,

 

The map you referred to is "calculated" Apparent resistivity. It is good but has one inherent flaw.

 

The hotspots are already covered (claimed) by three different companies. :)

 

Do you know what the flaw is?

 

- Geowizard

 

Apparent is flawed.

 

"It makes sense that apparent has the same ancient root as appear because it's about what is plain to see. Its subtle power of suggestion, however, is wonderfully useful. The "heir apparent" technically means next in line, but the ink isn't dry. The power of apparent is that it leaves the door open for a little ambiguity. Maybe the heir apparent will be the next king, or maybe he'll be overthrown in a bloodless coup by his apparently more ambitious cousin."---MW

 

When driving my sailboat into the wind on San Francisco Bay, the apparent wind direction is NOT the true wind direction.  It's calculated.  Meaning it is apparent but not accepted as correct.

 

Am I close?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geo,

 

The Temegami and Sudbury gives us the scale to set the calibrations which are referenced to determine relative data.

 

Are you beginning to introduce an impact crater in the vicinity if the INF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geo,

 

That's fine with me too.

 

I prefer to accept plutons and intrusives.  The understanding of volcanic causes of gold depositing are better suited to my limited knowledge.

 

 

 

Back on course here....

 

Whenever possible, your posts that include photos or digital renderings seem to light the light brighter and sooner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That old dozer worked for Gus 25 years.

 

I tried to calculate it's original purchase price paid by Gus. I failed.  Somebody else might be able to.

 

Of interst to me is...

What does Geo need to pay, in gold, for the same piece, today. 

All the economic fractions considered..... 

Todays gold for todays Cat, in relation to the deal Gus made.

 

Now let's run that number out 25 years and compare.

 

The Alaskan Gold Miner's world has turned a lot since 1938.  It'd be fun to measure what the Gus's Dozer standard of living was.

 

 

 

Also----

 

How come Gus parked his tool right smack on the 1,000' sweet spot?

Science?  Nah

Art? Nah

Dowsing? Crazy

Nose for the gold? No doubt in my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×